I vote for both technologies unless one becomes too unstable. I suggest looking to solar sails in space as the first method. The second is to look carefully at the recent solar discovery by that 13yr old kid. Imagine that kind of sail in space? It could extend for a very long way and draw all kinds of power from the Sun. The benefits of solar power not having noxious byproducts outweigh the effective uses of nuclear power, IMHO... unless of course we can find a way to make these byproducts friendly again.
You have a point here, but perhaps the method of best extraction of solar power is not to land the solar generation systems at all. Keep them in orbit and have them feed whatever units remotely.
And maybe a combo of these power sources are in order? Why limit our direction?:)
Solar would be far superior because you could be generating power during the space flight over there with solar sails plus you could then have zero emissions. This could lead to a perfect terraforming capability. Nuclear is going to require a lot of maintenance plus there are very noxious materials involved and the potential for meltdown is always just around the corner. The stars are trying to feed our species and we need to accept the fact that we can accept their offerings graciously instead of allowing them to pass into nether.
I think when the TouchPad didn't meet sales goals they realized that WebOS was going to be an enormous loss leader for years and years while they tried to break in to the market
You're right. HP was late to the party because like everyone else, they thought the iPad was awful at first. That was of course until you buy one and start using it. Then you use it all the time and realize how convenient it is. By then it's too late for HP and anyone else. They failed to see touch pads as a good prospect. So they were stuck in an old way of thinking and Apple beat them because of it.
But Apple will not stay on top because their stuff is overpriced and it's not that good. It's good, but it's weak in areas too.
The next type of platform I'm waiting for are neural nets. That's awesome tech that's on the verge of changing everything. Can you imagine logging onto work in a dream and waking up for a day at the beach... every day?
Look, we have all these resources in space but no method of harvesting them. A power plant on Mars might not sound like a viable option to you, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a necessary human development if we intend on colonizing space. If we don't intend on colonizing space well then we'd better learn about getting along and maximizing our resources so that we can continue to thrive as a species. My bet is that we are being totally stupid if we ignore the resources in space. Darwin is right!
If they would just cover Mars where the Sun shines, with Solar power facilities, they would generate as much energy, if not more, and they wouldn't have to worry about any messy nuclear waste or negative press. So the interesting part of this discovery is that back in the 1950's when there were all the sci-fi movies about Martians attacking us and sending probes up our you-know-whats, the reality is we will be likely sending an army of robots to Mars to do our bidding!
Comparing Apple to HP is like comparing apples and oranges. Let's make fruit salad.
Apple is profitable because they overcharge but typically they do not cut corners so their customers feel that the prices are mostly fair. Their business is in a total solution and complete lockdown of their technology, and they do this all very well.
If you want to compare Apple to HP, you have to look at HP and Microsoft, because HP doesn't sell an OS. They nixed the idea of doing it for whatever stupid reason.
HP is not profitable because of a number of reasons. First, HP offers computers that look as good as Apple computers because they are made at the same manufacturer. Therefore what exactly is HP? They are a middle man. The same is not true with Apple. Apple creates and controls their own OS. They've always done this and it's proven to be the number one source of their stability as a corporation because it frees them up to do great things.
HP has to deal with Microsoft and that's why they are ultimately failing. If HP would have say, five years ago, embraced Ubuntu and made their own fork that was user-friendly and managed all their systems, well then we'd be having a discussion about how HP and Apple are very similar beasts right on down to how profitable they both would be under those circumstances.
It's not the first time I've laughed at a PC company like HP. It won't be the last.
Once the decision to can WebOS was made, unloading the tablets and announcing closing down the department was the smart move from a fiscal and PR viewpoints.
They should not have entered into this market unless they were planning on sticking around. The problem with "WebOS" was the name "WebOS" -- it's dreadful. When competing with iPad, you gotta bring a classy edge to it. If HP called it OSome (awesome), or something to that level of coolness, then maybe they could have marketed it and challenged Apple for real market share.
No the real problem at HP is how they market stuff they do, and that's a new problem because they used to be good at it.
They are talking about selling off the PC biz, so it's not like they are throwing it away. HP just doesn't feel that they were making enough money selling PCs and they are correct. There is no margin in it. You know when all the laptops are made at the same factories for all the PC brands (including Apple), then you gotta ask... why the hell would any of these big corporations stick with low-GM products when they could mop up the revenue selling high-GM software and support?
The real problem here is how HP made the shift from a low to a high-GM company. They did this the worst possible way, and it has cost them dearly. They have almost zero chance of turning this around. Any shift from a wide customer base to a narrow one is going to cause revolts, revolutions, so they should have expected and planned for this transition effectively, rather than running roughshot and making it seem like the axe was coming for anyone at any time. You can't run an organization on fear alone; a CEO needs to have respect, especially when replacing someone who had it all.
Brought to you by Google. Just say No to Google, FaceBook and the "Social Web".
I think the problem is that none of these services care about whether we say no or not. We can sit back and say NO all we want and they'll keep using our information, keep tracking us, keep storing everything we do and say on the internet. But it's not real information, if you think about it. They're just passing it off as real, but they can't make real predictions from it, only guesses.
Hang in there. Diaspora might be exactly what we're looking for, or at the very least it'll be a step in the right direction.
Someone will work on countermeasures and then we'll feel secure. The next logical step is when someone works on counter-countermeasures to bypass the countermeasures. This chains on and on.
The closer people get to working together the farther apart we get in this closed system without pure moderation.
I still wish Slashdot had not done the changes in the UI they did. The problem I'm finding with Slashdot is when I click of text or double click it, it collapses instead of selects text. That's a huge change from the way things are supposed to work.
Look at these templates. Not one of these uses Javascript and they are amazing. They are functional.
They don't have the same level of backend code pushing that you see with JS topheavy sites, but they also don't have a lot of the annoying "features".
Google for example has a semi-new feature that when you press scroll down the JS captures your keypress and pushes your focus to the next search result. This is horrible and I don't see a way to disable it. When I press downarrow I want to scroll down a little bit. So here is a UI decision Google made for me.
Why the hell would we let a website decide how our UI experience is going to work? Shouldn't we be making those decisions ourselves and relying on our own methods for this kind of interaction so that we get what we want?
The best browser money can buy will have the following features (it doesn't exist yet):
- Keeps the web simple - Converts video media like flash and html5 on the fly to its own standard without any lag or adverse effects - Reinterprets every website as content, ads, forms, UI, and organizes these into preset methods developed by the user - Conforms to standards set by the user, and fully controlled by the user
Javascript really is the source of the most recent problems because it can allow entry into systems and activation of malware remotely. This is why ActiveX is also bad. Developers rush into this kind of technology thinking of the payoff but not the cost.
Really though, JS is totally unnecessary so I run noscript and I don't visit sites that have a zillion JS calls to different sites. I probably could turn antivirus off and still be okay.
I think you misread what was posted if you're trying to correct me. My point isn't that Mojang could or couldn't win in a court.
My point was that there is no point of law supporting their use of the "Scrolls" name in connection to a video game when the Elder Scrolls is so well known and trademarked, whereas there is a point of legal precedent supporting Bethesda extending their trademark use of Elder Scrolls to include other video games with the word "Scrolls" in the title, plus they could contend that use of the name "Scrolls" only could cause confusion that Bethesda was somehow involved with the Minecraft people when no such agreement was made.
tldr: Mojang AB knows they are in deep doodoo, and they are offering Bethesda a way out and trying to make this seem trivial. Bethesda must not allow them to use the name "Scrolls" or it will forever hurt that franchise.
Mojang could win in a court of law only if there was a jury, because juries are comprised of people who are sometimes willing to overlook points of law.
I disagree. It should be a boss that two teams have to race to fight and the first group that gets the boss down wins the right to govern because they have proven they can work as a team, and overcome any future difficult challenge needed to run a government effectively.
Nearly every bank has online banking and you don't read stories about banks getting hacked and money being stolen very often... at least not as often as some who are opposed to electronic or browser-based elections would have you believe.
Just handle it like a bank. The government awards the bank enough votes for each citizen. The government provides emails addresses for each citizen.
Tie the email address to each Social Insurance Number with a random hash and an open key the individual provides, and a password, and a few other password pairs that randomly prompt.
When a person turns the appropriate age, they are allowed to login to the election part of the system, otherwise they get access to all the info they would need about their history as a citizen.
During each election, a person gets one vote they can "spend" per type of candidate they may elect. This vote is closely associated with their registered riding so they can't vote for a candidate outside their registered place of residence.
Now if this was a transparent results-based system, it would be better than the paper system for a number of reasons, namely because it would keep the power to corrupt results out of the local people who are prone to that kind of thing, stealing votes, switching votes, stuffing boxes... etc.
Make the live source code open source. Guard against phishing.
There are reasons this would work. There are things that could make this difficult. But until I hear all the banks screaming that we need to go see them in their brick and mortar buildings, I think online transactions of a secure nature are fine. Put your tinfoil hats away people.
If this was an episode of Damages (awesome show) Patty Hugues would instruct her client, Bethesda, to stick to their guns and sue the guy for all he has. Mojang AB has basically admitted by asking for a sporting contest decision that they cannot win on a point of law. A judge would be flagrantly out of his or her depth to overlook that and even be a little perturbed by it.
All that said, it would be a great marketing campaign for both companies if they decided to do so. My guess is that Bethesda will take them up on their offer and have a live stream.
SurvivorZero + Shameless plug for a game that only 4 people will play (and 3 of which are the creators) = laaaame.
I'm not developing this game and I have no affiliation with the team. You don't want to play a game where you are surrounded by zombies and you have to hack your way through it? It's gonna be fun! And I think it's gonna be free to download, but I could be mistaken.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not in Facebook's best corporate interest to follow privacy rules. Therefore, it's not in our best interest to use Facebook.
I vote for both technologies unless one becomes too unstable. I suggest looking to solar sails in space as the first method. The second is to look carefully at the recent solar discovery by that 13yr old kid. Imagine that kind of sail in space? It could extend for a very long way and draw all kinds of power from the Sun. The benefits of solar power not having noxious byproducts outweigh the effective uses of nuclear power, IMHO... unless of course we can find a way to make these byproducts friendly again.
You have a point here, but perhaps the method of best extraction of solar power is not to land the solar generation systems at all. Keep them in orbit and have them feed whatever units remotely.
And maybe a combo of these power sources are in order? Why limit our direction? :)
Solar would be far superior because you could be generating power during the space flight over there with solar sails plus you could then have zero emissions. This could lead to a perfect terraforming capability. Nuclear is going to require a lot of maintenance plus there are very noxious materials involved and the potential for meltdown is always just around the corner. The stars are trying to feed our species and we need to accept the fact that we can accept their offerings graciously instead of allowing them to pass into nether.
You're right. HP was late to the party because like everyone else, they thought the iPad was awful at first. That was of course until you buy one and start using it. Then you use it all the time and realize how convenient it is. By then it's too late for HP and anyone else. They failed to see touch pads as a good prospect. So they were stuck in an old way of thinking and Apple beat them because of it.
But Apple will not stay on top because their stuff is overpriced and it's not that good. It's good, but it's weak in areas too.
The next type of platform I'm waiting for are neural nets. That's awesome tech that's on the verge of changing everything. Can you imagine logging onto work in a dream and waking up for a day at the beach... every day?
Look, we have all these resources in space but no method of harvesting them. A power plant on Mars might not sound like a viable option to you, but in the grand scheme of things, it's a necessary human development if we intend on colonizing space. If we don't intend on colonizing space well then we'd better learn about getting along and maximizing our resources so that we can continue to thrive as a species. My bet is that we are being totally stupid if we ignore the resources in space. Darwin is right!
Raenex... You're right but maybe someone could do something better? WebOS is horrible.
You're Anonymous Coward, so you can't really talk to me about names.
If they would just cover Mars where the Sun shines, with Solar power facilities, they would generate as much energy, if not more, and they wouldn't have to worry about any messy nuclear waste or negative press. So the interesting part of this discovery is that back in the 1950's when there were all the sci-fi movies about Martians attacking us and sending probes up our you-know-whats, the reality is we will be likely sending an army of robots to Mars to do our bidding!
Comparing Apple to HP is like comparing apples and oranges. Let's make fruit salad.
Apple is profitable because they overcharge but typically they do not cut corners so their customers feel that the prices are mostly fair. Their business is in a total solution and complete lockdown of their technology, and they do this all very well.
If you want to compare Apple to HP, you have to look at HP and Microsoft, because HP doesn't sell an OS. They nixed the idea of doing it for whatever stupid reason.
HP is not profitable because of a number of reasons. First, HP offers computers that look as good as Apple computers because they are made at the same manufacturer. Therefore what exactly is HP? They are a middle man. The same is not true with Apple. Apple creates and controls their own OS. They've always done this and it's proven to be the number one source of their stability as a corporation because it frees them up to do great things.
HP has to deal with Microsoft and that's why they are ultimately failing. If HP would have say, five years ago, embraced Ubuntu and made their own fork that was user-friendly and managed all their systems, well then we'd be having a discussion about how HP and Apple are very similar beasts right on down to how profitable they both would be under those circumstances.
It's not the first time I've laughed at a PC company like HP. It won't be the last.
They should not have entered into this market unless they were planning on sticking around. The problem with "WebOS" was the name "WebOS" -- it's dreadful. When competing with iPad, you gotta bring a classy edge to it. If HP called it OSome (awesome), or something to that level of coolness, then maybe they could have marketed it and challenged Apple for real market share.
No the real problem at HP is how they market stuff they do, and that's a new problem because they used to be good at it.
They are talking about selling off the PC biz, so it's not like they are throwing it away. HP just doesn't feel that they were making enough money selling PCs and they are correct. There is no margin in it. You know when all the laptops are made at the same factories for all the PC brands (including Apple), then you gotta ask... why the hell would any of these big corporations stick with low-GM products when they could mop up the revenue selling high-GM software and support?
The real problem here is how HP made the shift from a low to a high-GM company. They did this the worst possible way, and it has cost them dearly. They have almost zero chance of turning this around. Any shift from a wide customer base to a narrow one is going to cause revolts, revolutions, so they should have expected and planned for this transition effectively, rather than running roughshot and making it seem like the axe was coming for anyone at any time. You can't run an organization on fear alone; a CEO needs to have respect, especially when replacing someone who had it all.
I think the problem is that none of these services care about whether we say no or not. We can sit back and say NO all we want and they'll keep using our information, keep tracking us, keep storing everything we do and say on the internet. But it's not real information, if you think about it. They're just passing it off as real, but they can't make real predictions from it, only guesses.
Hang in there. Diaspora might be exactly what we're looking for, or at the very least it'll be a step in the right direction.
The shift towards virtualization represents a further shift in control away from each person towards a reliance on the honest of others.
Someone will work on countermeasures and then we'll feel secure. The next logical step is when someone works on counter-countermeasures to bypass the countermeasures. This chains on and on.
The closer people get to working together the farther apart we get in this closed system without pure moderation.
I still wish Slashdot had not done the changes in the UI they did. The problem I'm finding with Slashdot is when I click of text or double click it, it collapses instead of selects text. That's a huge change from the way things are supposed to work.
http://csszengarden.com/
Look at these templates. Not one of these uses Javascript and they are amazing. They are functional.
They don't have the same level of backend code pushing that you see with JS topheavy sites, but they also don't have a lot of the annoying "features".
Google for example has a semi-new feature that when you press scroll down the JS captures your keypress and pushes your focus to the next search result. This is horrible and I don't see a way to disable it. When I press downarrow I want to scroll down a little bit. So here is a UI decision Google made for me.
Why the hell would we let a website decide how our UI experience is going to work? Shouldn't we be making those decisions ourselves and relying on our own methods for this kind of interaction so that we get what we want?
The best browser money can buy will have the following features (it doesn't exist yet):
- Keeps the web simple
- Converts video media like flash and html5 on the fly to its own standard without any lag or adverse effects
- Reinterprets every website as content, ads, forms, UI, and organizes these into preset methods developed by the user
- Conforms to standards set by the user, and fully controlled by the user
Javascript really is the source of the most recent problems because it can allow entry into systems and activation of malware remotely. This is why ActiveX is also bad. Developers rush into this kind of technology thinking of the payoff but not the cost.
Really though, JS is totally unnecessary so I run noscript and I don't visit sites that have a zillion JS calls to different sites. I probably could turn antivirus off and still be okay.
I think you misread what was posted if you're trying to correct me. My point isn't that Mojang could or couldn't win in a court.
My point was that there is no point of law supporting their use of the "Scrolls" name in connection to a video game when the Elder Scrolls is so well known and trademarked, whereas there is a point of legal precedent supporting Bethesda extending their trademark use of Elder Scrolls to include other video games with the word "Scrolls" in the title, plus they could contend that use of the name "Scrolls" only could cause confusion that Bethesda was somehow involved with the Minecraft people when no such agreement was made.
tldr: Mojang AB knows they are in deep doodoo, and they are offering Bethesda a way out and trying to make this seem trivial. Bethesda must not allow them to use the name "Scrolls" or it will forever hurt that franchise.
Mojang could win in a court of law only if there was a jury, because juries are comprised of people who are sometimes willing to overlook points of law.
IANAL!
As leader of the Sacred Boar Party, I would like to protest this action because we need to SAVE THE BOARS.
I disagree. It should be a boss that two teams have to race to fight and the first group that gets the boss down wins the right to govern because they have proven they can work as a team, and overcome any future difficult challenge needed to run a government effectively.
Nearly every bank has online banking and you don't read stories about banks getting hacked and money being stolen very often... at least not as often as some who are opposed to electronic or browser-based elections would have you believe.
Just handle it like a bank. The government awards the bank enough votes for each citizen. The government provides emails addresses for each citizen.
Tie the email address to each Social Insurance Number with a random hash and an open key the individual provides, and a password, and a few other password pairs that randomly prompt.
When a person turns the appropriate age, they are allowed to login to the election part of the system, otherwise they get access to all the info they would need about their history as a citizen.
During each election, a person gets one vote they can "spend" per type of candidate they may elect. This vote is closely associated with their registered riding so they can't vote for a candidate outside their registered place of residence.
Now if this was a transparent results-based system, it would be better than the paper system for a number of reasons, namely because it would keep the power to corrupt results out of the local people who are prone to that kind of thing, stealing votes, switching votes, stuffing boxes... etc.
Make the live source code open source. Guard against phishing.
There are reasons this would work. There are things that could make this difficult. But until I hear all the banks screaming that we need to go see them in their brick and mortar buildings, I think online transactions of a secure nature are fine. Put your tinfoil hats away people.
This could be good.
If this was an episode of Damages (awesome show) Patty Hugues would instruct her client, Bethesda, to stick to their guns and sue the guy for all he has. Mojang AB has basically admitted by asking for a sporting contest decision that they cannot win on a point of law. A judge would be flagrantly out of his or her depth to overlook that and even be a little perturbed by it.
All that said, it would be a great marketing campaign for both companies if they decided to do so. My guess is that Bethesda will take them up on their offer and have a live stream.
I heard LA Noire was awesome. The youtube vids look pretty sweet.
I'm gonna buy it in the fall when it ships for PC.
I'm not developing this game and I have no affiliation with the team. You don't want to play a game where you are surrounded by zombies and you have to hack your way through it? It's gonna be fun! And I think it's gonna be free to download, but I could be mistaken.